Officer loses court martial appeal

An appeal by an Army commandant against a court martial decision that he disobeyed an order not to attend a military club during…

An appeal by an Army commandant against a court martial decision that he disobeyed an order not to attend a military club during a St Patrick's Day visit to Lebanon in 1997 by the then minister for defence, Mr Sean Barrett, was dismissed by the Courts Martial Appeal Court yesterday.

Earlier this year a court martial found that acting Comdt Anthony Byrne disobeyed a lawful command of a superior officer in relation to the incident. Acting Comdt Byrne was charged with disobeying an order from Lieut Col Patrick O'Sullivan not to attend the Setanta Club, an NCOs' facility, at Camp Shamrock, Lebanon, on March 17th, 1997, during a visit by Mr Barrett. Last February, the court martial, which was held at Ceannt Barracks, Curragh Camp, Co Kildare, imposed on the acting commandant a sentence of forfeiture of three months' seniority within his rank. This meant his promotion to acting commandant took place on March 17th, 1997, and not on December 13th, 1996. A fine of £50 was also imposed.

During the court martial at the Curragh, Mr Barrett was among those called as witnesses.

In the Courts Martial Appeal Court, all grounds of appeal were rejected by the three-judge court of Mr Justice Lynch, presiding; Mr Justice Moriarty and Mr Justice Smith.

READ MORE

Delivering judgment, Mr Justice Lynch said that while there was a number of grounds of appeal, three main grounds had, in substance, been argued.

It was submitted that a direction ought to have been given at the conclusion of the prosecution evidence at the court martial. There was also an argument about whether there was correspondence between the order given and what was conveyed to acting Comdt Byrne and about an alleged inadequacy of the Judge Advocate's instruction to the court martial.

On whether there was correspondence between the order given and the order conveyed and understood, the judge said that the order, being verbal, did not have to be repeated verbatim. Its sense must be conveyed and that it was a superior officer's order.

There was ample evidence to entitle the court to find it was an order of a superior officer and that its meaning was conveyed adequately, he said.